Study

Efficacy of mechanical methods and the application of selective herbicides in control of birch Betula spp. at Holme Fen NNR, Cambridgeshire, England

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Apply herbicide to trees

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Cut trees

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Cut trees and apply herbicide

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation
  1. Apply herbicide to trees

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1979–1981 in a heathland in Cambridgeshire, UK (Marrs 1984) found that using herbicide to control silver birch Betula pendula saplings sometimes increased the abundance of heather Calluna vulgaris and birch seedlings while reducing the abundance of silver birch saplings. In one of three cases, plots treated with herbicide had more heather seedlings (64 seedlings/m2) than untreated plots (4 seedlings/m2). In three of three cases, plots treated with herbicide had fewer birch saplings (0–1 saplings/m2) than untreated plots (20 saplings /m2). However, in two of three cases, birch seedlings were more abundant in plots treated with herbicide (24–54 seedlings/m2) than in untreated plots (7 seedlings/m2). The herbicides fosamine, 2,4,5-T, and triclopyr were each applied in four 4 m2 plots in 1979, and in four plots no herbicide was applied. Density of birch and heather plants was estimated annually in 1980-1981 in all plots.

  2. Cut trees

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1979–1981 in a heathland in Cambridgeshire, UK (Marrs 1984) found that cutting and pulling of silver birch Betula pendula increased the density of heather Calluna vulgaris seedlings but not that of mature common heather plants. There were more heather seedlings in plots where silver birch saplings had been cut or pulled (83–126 seedlings/m2) than in plots where silver birch saplings had not been cut or pulled (4 seedlings/m2), but there was no significant difference in mature heather density (cut/pulled: 8-11 plants/m2; uncut: 12 plants/m2). In two of three cases, areas where silver birch saplings had been cut or pulled had fewer silver birch saplings (0–5 saplings/m2) than areas where silver birch saplings had not been cut or pulled (20 saplings /m2), but in three of three cases there was no significant difference in the abundance of birch seedlings (cut/pulled: 9–19 seedlings/m2; uncut: 7 seedlings/m2). In four 4 m2 plots birch saplings were pulled out of the ground in 1979, in four plots birch saplings were cut in 1979, in four plots birch saplings were cut in 1979 and 1980, and in four plots birch saplings were not cut or pulled. Abundance of birch and heather plants was estimated annually in 1980-1981 in all plots.

  3. Cut trees and apply herbicide

    A controlled study in 1979–1981 in a heathland in Cambridgeshire, UK (Marrs 1984) found that cutting birch Betula pendula saplings and spraying with herbicide sometimes increased the abundance of heather Calluna vulgaris seedlings. After two years and in one of three cases, there were more heather seedlings in areas where silver birch saplings had been cut and sprayed with herbicide (64 seedlings/m2) than in plots where silver birch saplings had not been cut or sprayed (4 seedlings/m2). Areas where trees had been cut and herbicide had been applied had fewer silver birch saplings (2-4 saplings/m2) than those where herbicide had not been used (20 saplings/m2). However, the opposite was true in two of three cases for silver birch seedlings (cut and herbicide: 24-54 seedlings/m2; uncut and no herbicide: 7 seedlings/m2). The herbicides fosamine ammonium, 2,4,5-T, and triclopyr were each applied in four 4 m2 plots in 1979 followed by cutting in 1980, and in four plots no herbicide or cutting was applied. Additionally, each herbicide was applied in four 4 m2 plots in 1980 following cutting in 1979, and in another four plots no herbicide or cutting was applied. Abundance of silver birch and heather plants was estimated annually in 1980-1981 in all plots.

Output references
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust